Hedgepeth v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2006-IA-01991-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2008 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Venue - Section 11-11-3(1)(a)(I) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz, P.J., and Graves, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal; Venue Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER; Interlocutory Appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2006 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Edward C. Prisock Disposition: The trial court granted Defendants’ Motion for Change of Venue from Jackson County to Madison County (Johnson’s county of residence), finding that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-11-3 mandates that an individual defendant be sued only in his or her county of residence. Case Number: 2006-00,031(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Rev. Mitchell Hedgepeth and Catherine Hedgepeth |
Clyde H. Gunn; Christopher C. Van Cleave; W. Corban Gunn |
|
|
| Appellee: | Melody Johnson; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and John and Jane Doe Defendants A-H | Dan W. Webb; B. Wayne Williams; J. Douglas Foster; Vincent J. Castigliola, Jr.; John A. Banahan | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Insurance - Venue - Section 11-11-3(1)(a)(I) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mitchell and Catherine Hedgepeth filed a complaint in Jackson County against Melody Johnson, individually and as an agent of State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The Hedgepeths assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, bad faith breach of contract, and infliction of emotional distress. The complaint followed State Farm’s denial of coverage for property damage incurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The trial court granted defendants’ Motion for Change of Venue from Jackson County to Madison County (Johnson’s county of residence). The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In making their motion for change of venue, the defendants argued that section 11-11-3(1)(a)(I) requires that an individual defendant be sued only in the defendant’s county of residence. The current version of the statute became effective on September 1, 2004. Considering both the legislative context and judicial construction of prior versions of the statute, the trial court agreed with the defendants’ position. The trial court’s reliance on legislative intent in interpreting this statute is misplaced and unnecessary. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous there is no room for interpretation or construction, and the statute is applied according to the meaning of those words. Section 11-11-3(1)(a)(I) is a plain and unambiguous statute. It lays out four venue options from which plaintiffs can choose when filing a lawsuit. The first two are based on the status of the defendant; that is, if the defendant is a resident defendant, the suit may be filed in his county of residence; or, if the defendant is a corporation, the suit may be filed in the county of its principal place of business. The latter two venue options focus on the alleged acts or omissions of the defendants; that is, the suit may be filed where a substantial alleged act or omission occurred; or, finally, suit may be filed where a substantial event that caused the injury occurred. According to the clear language of the statute, “[c]ivil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be commenced in” one of these four places. While Madison County is one of the permissible venues in this case, the plaintiff’s choice of venue in Jackson County must be sustained if it is a proper venue pursuant to section 11-11-3. Because Jackson County is neither Johnson’s county of residence nor State Farm’s principal place of business, the Court must examine the facts of this case to determine whether either “a substantial alleged act or omission” or “a substantial event that caused injury” occurred in Jackson County. The Hedgepeths’ claims are based, at least in part, on actual losses suffered due to Hurricane Katrina, as their complaint alleges the loss of thousands of dollars in personal property as a result of the defendant’s failure to provide flood insurance. In addition to their claims for failure to procure flood insurance on their property, the Hedgepeths also allege that Johnson urged them to commit insurance fraud. Johnson was in Jackson County at the Hedgepeths’ home when she allegedly told Mrs. Hedgepeth to list some of the property which had been destroyed on the first floor as having been located on the second floor. State Farm also had two representatives inform the Hedgepeths in person in Jackson County that their claim would be denied because they did not have flood coverage. Jackson County is therefore one of the proper venues for this suit and therefore, the plaintiff’s choice of venue must be sustained. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
